Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs.

You can even overdub when creating the cutting master.

Why would you do that ?

You have to really, really want something that isn't on the master or
production master to be on the finished product.

Saw it in a tv movie!

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I'll do that if you explain why you brought up "non-destructible" which
is an editing technique, not a stage in the mastering process. You can
use destructive editing if you want.

First of all, "non-destructible" is an adjective, not a technique. I
chose not to say "non-destructive" so that you wouldn't make the leap
you're making. I guess that didn't work.

Let's get back to basics. What did you mean by "non-destructible" ?

Not destroyable. Yes, I'm agreeing with you that a digital master is
delivered to the pressing plant with the presumption that the bits are
intact.

While I wasn't referring to DAWs as such, it is true that the modern
editing process doesn't generally change the original recording, but
accumulates changes on the way to the nominally final product. This
master reflects numerous artistic choices, any of which can be undone.

One might even say an lp master is more special because it can't be so
easily restored.

The master is the final finished work. This doesn't change if you use
Pro Tools. Pro Tools simply makes it easier to go back and alter the
master from the source material again. But that's not a unique feature.
In theory you can do that without Pro Tools.

Not so easily.

Yup. Ease of use is the difference. But it's not unique to computer
based digital editing.

A tape-based edit list? Cool idea, but I've never seen one.

Because it ****s the sound up.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
stretch lp limits.

Like what ?

Typical pop music, once upon a time.

That choice is dictated by the market, not by artistry. You'll note that
these days it's a choice seldom made. I rarely hear of artists who
publicly complain about their music not being released on LP.

Last time I checked, a substantial portion of the Billboard pop chart
was available on lp.

You have to go out of your way to get it. The pop charts certainly
aren't the be all and end all. They're the tip of the industry iceberg
really.

That's a pretty big tip! I'm not saying lps are as easy to get, but they
are out there.

That is a matter of personal opinion. The relevant thing is that they
are different.

But there can only be one real one, right?

Um no. People go back to the multitracks all the time to do things like
5.1 remixes, others like to just reinterpret their own work. This isn't
relevant to the question of LP cutting masters.

It is relevant to the idea that one shouldn't use lp cutting masters
because they're 'different'. If a multi-track master made to
appropriately use that medium is legit, than so to is an lp master
appropriately modified for its medium. Same for remixes, etc.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Let's get back to basics. What did you mean by "non-destructible" ?

Not destroyable. Yes, I'm agreeing with you that a digital master is
delivered to the pressing plant with the presumption that the bits are
intact.

What are you talking about ?

One might even say an lp master is more special because it can't be so
easily restored.

It's certainly unique, but if you were to make an LP master today you'd
probably do it on a DAW, and hence the process would be fully reversible
etc. But this is all moot; I do not really think that artists keep
copies of their edit history lying about.

Yup. Ease of use is the difference. But it's not unique to computer
based digital editing.

A tape-based edit list? Cool idea, but I've never seen one.

With the right motivation you could do it. Yes, it would be extremely
impractical.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
stretch lp limits.

Like what ?

Typical pop music, once upon a time.

Pop music contains vocals. Vocals stretch any recording medium.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
At one time the *master* was sent to the cutting engineer who would
have his own lab or workshop. And he would have had *no* facilities
for overdubbing - that's studio work. Nor would it be common to do
overdubs to 1/4" - you'd go back to the multi-track for this.

All it takes is a portable mixer, a mic preamp and a microphone. And I
didn't say it was common.

And some way of getting a sync output off the master - and this isn't
*that* common in 1/4" machines. And feeding it to the talent. And good
acoustics - quiet if nothing else. And then compressors and reverb. In
other words, full studio facilities.

Perhaps. That would be the best way to do it. However, the point is that
it can be done, not that it is easy or common.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Let's get back to basics. What did you mean by "non-destructible" ?

Not destroyable. Yes, I'm agreeing with you that a digital master is
delivered to the pressing plant with the presumption that the bits are
intact.

What are you talking about ?

So much for agreeing with you about digital delivery media...

One might even say an lp master is more special because it can't be so
easily restored.

It's certainly unique, but if you were to make an LP master today you'd
probably do it on a DAW, and hence the process would be fully reversible
etc. But this is all moot; I do not really think that artists keep
copies of their edit history lying about.

They archive them. I think the term is 'data disc'.

Yup. Ease of use is the difference. But it's not unique to computer
based digital editing.

A tape-based edit list? Cool idea, but I've never seen one.

With the right motivation you could do it. Yes, it would be extremely
impractical.

Not necessarily. There's plenty of program material that *doesn't*
stretch lp limits.

Like what ?

Typical pop music, once upon a time.

Pop music contains vocals. Vocals stretch any recording medium.

Sir, you're too close to the microphone. Please step back.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

But it's the *correct* definition. If you wish to use pro terms, you must
accept pro definitions.

You might also look up what 'overdub' actually means. I've never known it
be used with a 1/4" stereo tape. It's exclusively a multi-track term.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut
to an lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut
to an lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

Arny demonstrates the sound of one hand clapping. If someone plays a
master tape in the woods and no one hears it, is it art?

Stephen

--
--
Stephen McElroy

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being
cut to an lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

Arny demonstrates the sound of one hand clapping. If someone plays a
master tape in the woods and no one hears it, is it art?

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
But it's the *correct* definition. If you wish to use pro terms, you
must accept pro definitions.

Pros use the term quite a bit. Count the sticky tabs that come with a
DAT that say "master".

Doesn't mean you use them carelessly.

Whatever you decide is the master is the master.

There are cases in which the master tape doesn't have everything heard
on the commercial issue. It's still the master tape.

No it's not.

Mixdown master, production master, cutting master, stamping master.
Lotta masters in there. What if someone's rough mix is subsequently
chosen for release? Before that choice, it's a work in progress,
afterward it's a sacred encapsulation of intent, right? And if there's a
remix, is it unmastered?

You might also look up what 'overdub' actually means. I've never
known it be used with a 1/4" stereo tape.

Call it "sound on sound" if you prefer, or "ping-ponging".

No - you call it that.

Easy now!

Overdubbing is a precise term which means replacing
one track - or part of a track - with another - not bouncing down a
generation.

Seems you could do that during a mix if you wanted to. You could also do
it to the production master and not the mixdown master.

From http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar0...cles/basic.asp

Doncha like the site's name?

"Modern multitrack technology allows an entirely different approach to
recording, because each instrument can be recorded onto a new track
while listening back to those already recorded ‹ a process known as
overdubbing. What's more, you can overdub only sections of each track,
in order to improve on the performance or correct mistakes."

No reason a mix can't include live elements, which is my point as far as
this goes. "I Am the Walrus" with its aleatoric element of a radio
broadcast (mono mix) is a well-known example. To call the live element a
"live overdub" isn't a stretch.

It's exclusively a multi-track term.

Sigh. If it's exclusively multi-track, what's it "dubbing over"?

I *really* think you need to study the multi-track recording procedure.

Seen it. "Punching in," "comping," all that stuff. To see an experienced
engineer comp a vocal on a two-inch tape machine is quite something. And
there's nothing in your definition that precludes replacing part of a
quarter inch stereo tape.

Once one sees how plastic the sacred master tape is, one becomes less
dogmatic about it's supremacy. For instance, US collectors accept lp
reissues based on British production masters becuase, due to wear and
tear on the overused US master and production masters, they are the best
remaining sources for certain recordings.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being
cut to an lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

Arny demonstrates the sound of one hand clapping. If someone plays a
master tape in the woods and no one hears it, is it art?

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product, especially
when that end product has features unique to it (and missing from the
master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative". To say so
is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete one.

I prefer "My Generation" with feedback, thanks.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:

snip

Well, that didn't go as expected. Sorry for the mangled post. I was
trying to correct an incorrect word.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product, especially
when that end product has features unique to it (and missing from the
master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative". To say so
is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete one.

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
*tape*.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Not in this case, as that extra creative step doesn't get applied to
non-LP formats.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
*tape*.

Yes, as the computer can just record everything you did and rebuild the
master from scratch from the source material. But if you do it a second
time and tweak it, you have a new "master". The point is not whether
it's better or worse (it may be either or none), just that it's
different.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Not in this case, as that extra creative step doesn't get applied to
non-LP formats.

Nonsense. The creative step can be from the onset, including all media.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
*tape*.

Yes, as the computer can just record everything you did and rebuild the
master from scratch from the source material. But if you do it a second
time and tweak it, you have a new "master". The point is not whether
it's better or worse (it may be either or none), just that it's
different.

Yes, indeed.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Seen it. "Punching in," "comping," all that stuff. To see an experienced
engineer comp a vocal on a two-inch tape machine is quite something. And
there's nothing in your definition that precludes replacing part of a
quarter inch stereo tape.

In the cutting engineers lab to bring you back on topic?

So you assemble the entire orchestra and vocals, do an identical mix on
your portable mixer, arrange for a sync output to feed all their cans, and
do your overdub.

Yes it's possible. ;-)

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product,
especially when that end product has features unique to it (and
missing from the master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be
"derivative". To say so is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable
stage to a complete one.

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the
majority of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative
which is created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Let's say that we have a painting, which is a complete work of art. Let's
say that some craftsman decides to copy the painting into some other media
that is more limited in many ways than oil painting, say mosaic tile. That's
almost exactly what a LP mastering engineer does to a master tape.

Now what does one say about the mosaic? Legally and ethically, it's a
derivative work. The creatorship and ownership of the art remains with the
original artist who painted the oil painting until he transfers ownership
to someone else. Creatorship is his forever.

If the craftsman tries to do anything with his mosaic without respecting the
wishes of the owner of the original oil painting, his efforts are at best
tainted and possibly illegal. The craftsman who made the mosaic can't claim
that the art is all his.

Furthermore, there is no question that the mosaic is not an accurate
representation of the original work of art. The mosaic is forever condemned
to a subordinate place in the artistic scheme of things. The painting is the
original work of art, and that is that. The mosaic is a derivative work.

Good analogy. In my hypothetical situation, the mosaic artist has his
own store where he sells mosaics based on oil paintings that he hides in
his basement. Not only that, the oil paintings were commissioned as
templates for his mosaics. The artist adds details and effects not found
in the template painting. His customers have a cultural bias towards
tiles.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd
usually only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go
back to the master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something
people would do voluntarily.

I think they'd only do it voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no
master *tape*.

There is still a master recording. This is begging the question or simply
ignorance.

Nope. I've already explained "begging the question" in this thread.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Let's say that we have a painting, which is a complete work of art.
Let's say that some craftsman decides to copy the painting into some
other media that is more limited in many ways than oil painting, say
mosaic tile. That's almost exactly what a LP mastering engineer does to
a master tape.

That's a good analogy. Congratulations.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Well, that didn't go as expected. Sorry for the mangled post. I was
trying to correct an incorrect word.

You should have overdubbed it.

Indeed. A classic punch in.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
You should have overdubbed it.

Indeed. A classic punch in.

Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Me:
Good analogy. In my hypothetical situation, the mosaic artist has his
own store where he sells mosaics based on oil paintings that he hides
in his basement. Not only that, the oil paintings were commissioned as
templates for his mosaics. The artist adds details and effects not
found in the template painting. His customers have a cultural bias
towards tiles.

The vinyl equivalent of this would be LP's that were produced from the onset
only for distribution as LP's, with no hopes of future improvements in
media. I don't believe that this has ever been the case, except for perhaps
some tiny, short-run boutique recordings.

I've never seen an LP that wasn't meant for distribution as other than
an LP, unless you count those melted lamp shade things in gift shops
years ago. I assumed those were returns, not special pressings.

I suppose we all want something better to hope for.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Me:
Good analogy. In my hypothetical situation, the mosaic artist has
his own store where he sells mosaics based on oil paintings that he
hides in his basement. Not only that, the oil paintings were
commissioned as templates for his mosaics. The artist adds details
and effects not found in the template painting. His customers have
a cultural bias towards tiles.

The vinyl equivalent of this would be LP's that were produced from
the onset only for distribution as LP's, with no hopes of future
improvements in media. I don't believe that this has ever been the
case, except for perhaps some tiny, short-run boutique recordings.

I've never seen an LP that wasn't meant for distribution as other than
an LP, unless you count those melted lamp shade things in gift shops
years ago. I assumed those were returns, not special pressings.

Irrelevant since the point was that the same musical performances
distributed on LPs were at various times distributed as:

(1) 45's
(2) Open reel tapes
(3) 8 track tapes
(4) cassette tapes
(5) CDs
(6) DVDs
(7) Radio broadcasts
(8) TV broadcasts
(9) Laserdiscs

and that this was often known at the time the performance was recorded.

I suppose we all want something better to hope for.

Yes, like a relevant thoughtful answer from you Stephen.

You've been hanging out with people like Ludovic too much, Stephen.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
You should have overdubbed it.

Indeed. A classic punch in.

Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.

Not around here. One punches in a short segment, a phrase, even just a
note or two to replace a mistake.

Terminology could be different in the UK.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
In the cutting engineers lab to bring you back on topic?

That wasn't the topic. My point was that the recording can be changed at
any production stage.

And my point was that it won't be other than in the studio.

That's no distinction. It's not even correct. Even digital masters go to
mastering studios and can also be changed at the pressing plant.

Forget about the cutting engineer for a moment and pretend you're
recording direct-to-disc a la Sheffield Lab. You've decided to do an
avant-garde tape and solo instrument piece from the 60s and want to
record the tape direct and the solo instrument with microphones.

Possible?

Err, direct to disc means just that - no tape. Care to try again?

"Tape and solo instrument," remember? There's a whole genre of music for
pre-recorded tapes and live performers.

So you assemble the entire orchestra and vocals, do an identical mix
on your portable mixer, arrange for a sync output to feed all their
cans, and do your overdub.

No. You play the lp production master tape, split the output signal for
monitoring and mix the new element with the original recording before
the cutter.

The whole point of making an lp cutting master is to make sure what you
have on the master tape will cut. Adding something 'live' would be a total
nonsense. You really, really, really, don't do things like that when
making an lp. Trust me.

Refer to my earlier comment about how easy and common it is. You'd have
to really, really, really, really want to do it.

Yes it's possible. ;-)

If you say so.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
And my point was that it won't be other than in the studio.

That's no distinction. It's not even correct. Even digital masters go to
mastering studios and can also be changed at the pressing plant.

By adding live vocals etc at the pressing plant? Like I said, anything is
possible, but let's just keep a sense of reality.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.

Not around here. One punches in a short segment, a phrase, even just a
note or two to replace a mistake.

Explain the difference between that and overdubbing, then?

Terminology could be different in the UK.

It often is.

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.

Not around here. One punches in a short segment, a phrase, even just a
note or two to replace a mistake.

Explain the difference between that and overdubbing, then?

Duration. Also, if you would so good as to recall the definition I
supplied a few posts back, overdubbing can mean recording an entirely
new track, hence the synonym, "tracking".

Terminology could be different in the UK.

It often is.

Best to table the matter, right?

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
And my point was that it won't be other than in the studio.

That's no distinction. It's not even correct. Even digital masters go to
mastering studios and can also be changed at the pressing plant.

By adding live vocals etc at the pressing plant?

More normal would be a change of level.

Like I said, anything is
possible, but let's just keep a sense of reality.

I say it is possible, but difficult and rarely done, to add a live
element to a master tape while making a cutting master. I see that you
agree.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.

So you forgot that he was trying to replace an incorrect word?

I.e. "pick[ing] up after a mistake"?

No - he got to the end before trying to correct it. You usually 'punch' or
drop in after things have ground to a halt. You can do a repair by
dropping in then out again, but IMHO, that's not so common. There's a risk
of a problem at the drop out point.

It's a difference in terminology, then. IME, "punching in" is in and out
correcting a mistake in an otherwise complete section. One might call
the "flying start" after a breakdown "punching in" as well, but not
exclusively. Something longer than a "punch in" would be a "patch" but
that might get its own track.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Refer to my earlier comment about how easy and common it is. You'd have
to really, really, really, really want to do it.

It is easy and common now, but of course LPs now only account for a tiny
part of the market.

It was not easy or common at the time when LPs were popular - let's be
really generous and pick 1990 as a cut-off date. Certainly in 1990
digital audio workstations and editing by computer were still a thing of
the future.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

A certain Dave Plowman, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Let's say that we have a painting, which is a complete work of art.
Let's say that some craftsman decides to copy the painting into some
other media that is more limited in many ways than oil painting, say
mosaic tile. That's almost exactly what a LP mastering engineer does to
a master tape.

That's a good analogy. Congratulations.

Agreed there, but would there be mosaic zealots who'd insist that their
copies were much better than the original work ?

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
I said "derivative work of art" which is to say that the final product is a
work of art in itself.

Granted, but in this hypothetical case, the lp is the intended final
product with unique features beyond those inherent in vinyl.

But the LP was seldom ever "the final product" for the recording artist,
elsewhere a list of alternative media has already been given.

I have a specific hypothetical case in mind, so your comment doesn't
apply.

In general, I suppose all delivery media can be considered 'derivative'.

They need not be, as a CD in any serious case is close to an exact
replica of the recorded work, unless a business decision is made to
alter that.

What kind of cover art does a master tape come with?

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Refer to my earlier comment about how easy and common it is. You'd have
to really, really, really, really want to do it.

It is easy and common now, but of course LPs now only account for a tiny
part of the market.

It was not easy or common at the time when LPs were popular - let's be
really generous and pick 1990 as a cut-off date. Certainly in 1990
digital audio workstations and editing by computer were still a thing of
the future.

You agree, too.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Like I said, anything is
possible, but let's just keep a sense of reality.

I say it is possible, but difficult and rarely done, to add a live
element to a master tape while making a cutting master. I see that you
agree.

I believe it's also possible to buy a ticket to the moon...

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Like drawing teeth?

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
No matter, I don't have
any trouble on the rare occasions I work with audio professionals.

Then on one of those rare occasions, I suggest you ask about how common
it is to do 'overdubs' to an LP at the cutting stage. And be prepared for
some strange looks.

--
*Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Then on one of those rare occasions, I suggest you ask about how
common it is to do 'overdubs' to an LP at the cutting stage. And be
prepared for some strange looks.

I know how "common" it is. (At the cutting stage, it isn't an lp yet.)

Sorry. To what will shortly become an LP.

Maybe you're hung up on the word 'overdub'. Was there anything wrong
with the definitions I supplied?

You're the one who used it originally.

Wasn't it not uncommon once upon a time for the cutting engineer to
apply his own eq?

The cutting engineer would do all sorts of tweaks to the master tape. But
*not* add to or change the 'performance' as you implied all these days ago
and started this...

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Then on one of those rare occasions, I suggest you ask about how
common it is to do 'overdubs' to an LP at the cutting stage. And be
prepared for some strange looks.

I know how "common" it is. (At the cutting stage, it isn't an lp yet.)

Sorry. To what will shortly become an LP.

An acetate, to be precise.

Maybe you're hung up on the word 'overdub'. Was there anything wrong
with the definitions I supplied?

You're the one who used it originally.

Is that all it takes, that I used it? I used it in sense that recording
a new track in a multi-track master is often called 'overdubbing',
hardly a novel usage.

Wasn't it not uncommon once upon a time for the cutting engineer to
apply his own eq?

The cutting engineer would do all sorts of tweaks to the master tape. But
*not* add to or change the 'performance' as you implied all these days ago
and started this...

I said one could even change the performance at the cutting stage. You
agree that it is possible. I agree that it is extremely rare (the
cutting engineer wouldn't pull a penny whistle from his back pocket and
extemporise an obbligato during the procedure).

The overall point is that artistic choices can be made at any point of
the production.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

The discussion was really about the sanctity (or not) of the master, in
general.

Oh, in general. Yes, I'd rather have the best transfer of the master
tape appropriate to the medium. You mentioned Wendy Carlos. She has a
very good discussion of the issues involved on her website.

Below, you have misrepresented in rather dramatic terms what Carlos'
wrote. It is rather disappointing that you'd conduct an argument by
trying to mislead people, and this throws some doubt on your credibility
in general. Anyone who wants to read what she actually said may look
here :

http://www.wendycarlos.com/repairs.html

See the
section concerning the box-set of her first four albums. New and
improved, departing from the original as needed for her artistic
expression.

Carlos at no point described any of what she did as "departing from the
original". Throughout her discussion of the remastering her emphasis is
quite clearly on preserving as best as possible the full sound recorded
to the original master tapes, and she describes the pains she went to in
the process of achieving a good balance between removing blemishes and
altering the music. At no point did she suggest that she was attempting
to revise, rework or enhance those works.

She *did* correct some tiny problems, such as the ticks produced by the
Moog's envelope generators and some of the pitch errors that became
audible, and a tad of noise reduction and pitch correction. Those
admittedly *were* on the master tape, but this does not constitute the
kind of wholesale alteration we're talking about when we do an LP
cutting master.

She even grants that for those who have 'imprinted' on the
original lp might only be happy with the original lp.

What is invalid about that point ? We already understand quite well that
certain people have a preference for the type of sound you get on LPs,
and that includes the sound of Carlos' CBS-produced LP cutting masters
(several generations removed from the original masters). My whole point
during this thread has been about getting the sound that the artist
intended to record in the first place - as Wendy says - "This is all
much, much closer to what we originally intended back then, but had to
be satisfied with less [TGS - namely the LP]". This contends your point
- which is that the master tape isn't the whole story of what the artist
intended - rather directly

Of course, she's not an lp mastering engineer,

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yes she is, or was (during the 1960s when she
worked at Gotham Studios in NYC). I have considered writing to her to
get her to consider putting up a page on her site entitled "how to
master an LP". Then during arguments like these in the future, I'd
simply have to pass on her URL :)

so her comments
(elsewhere, Mix Magazine?) on the original mastering should be taken as
those of an artist unhappy with her treatment by the record company.

It is nothing to do with the company. Elsewhere on her site Carlos
describes the LPs as a terrible compromise, but the best that were
available for the time. The LP mastering procedure was necessary.
Nothing to do with the record company.


Odd
in a way to champion the early synthesizer with its completely
artificial aural space in a discussion of master tape fidelity.

Can you explain "artifical aural space" please ? I think you're talking
******** with that remark, to be frank about it.

They need not be, as a CD in any serious case is close to an exact
replica of the recorded work, unless a business decision is made to
alter that.

What kind of cover art does a master tape come with?

Cover art isn't music.

Cds aren't music, either. A bell is a cup, and all that.

The CD contains music. I thought that was obvious.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

The discussion was really about the sanctity (or not) of the master, in
general.

Oh, in general. Yes, I'd rather have the best transfer of the master
tape appropriate to the medium. You mentioned Wendy Carlos. She has a
very good discussion of the issues involved on her website.

Below, you have misrepresented in rather dramatic terms what Carlos'
wrote. It is rather disappointing that you'd conduct an argument by
trying to mislead people, and this throws some doubt on your credibility
in general.

I have not misrepresented those writings, certainly not in "dramatic
terms". Nor can it be misleading when I tell where to find the original.
Your claim concerning my credibility is self-serving.

Anyone who wants to read what she actually said may look here :

http://www.wendycarlos.com/repairs.html

See the
section concerning the box-set of her first four albums. New and
improved, departing from the original as needed for her artistic
expression.

Carlos at no point described any of what she did as "departing from the
original". Throughout her discussion of the remastering her emphasis is
quite clearly on preserving as best as possible the full sound recorded
to the original master tapes, and she describes the pains she went to in
the process of achieving a good balance between removing blemishes and
altering the music. At no point did she suggest that she was attempting
to revise, rework or enhance those works.

She is aware of the issues and discusses them without your dogma. In a
new mastering, she chose not to be absolutely faithful to the original,
but to improve upon it, using skills, tools and experience not available
the first time around. This is precisely the sort of thing I point out
as contrary to your absolutism concerning master tapes and adherence to
an imagined sacred fixing of intent. Yes, my description of "departing
from the original as needed" is surely closer to the case than yours of
"preserving...the full sound".

She *did* correct some tiny problems, such as the ticks produced by the
Moog's envelope generators and some of the pitch errors that became
audible, and a tad of noise reduction and pitch correction. Those
admittedly *were* on the master tape, but this does not constitute the
kind of wholesale alteration we're talking about when we do an LP
cutting master.

Where's your master tape fetish now? The pitch correction, etc, are all
changes to the original. What would you think of a pop singer
auto-tuning an old performance?

She even grants that for those who have 'imprinted' on the
original lp might only be happy with the original lp.

What is invalid about that point ? We already understand quite well that
certain people have a preference for the type of sound you get on LPs,
and that includes the sound of Carlos' CBS-produced LP cutting masters
(several generations removed from the original masters). My whole point
during this thread has been about getting the sound that the artist
intended to record in the first place - as Wendy says - "This is all
much, much closer to what we originally intended back then, but had to
be satisfied with less [TGS - namely the LP]". This contends your point
- which is that the master tape isn't the whole story of what the artist
intended - rather directly

You've overlooked that the *master tape* falls short of her intentions.

Of course, she's not an lp mastering engineer,

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I stand corrected. I mean that she didn't master the SOB records.
Indeed, if she had, she might have been more pleased with the results.

Yes she is, or was (during the 1960s when she
worked at Gotham Studios in NYC). I have considered writing to her to
get her to consider putting up a page on her site entitled "how to
master an LP". Then during arguments like these in the future, I'd
simply have to pass on her URL :)

so her comments
(elsewhere, Mix Magazine?) on the original mastering should be taken as
those of an artist unhappy with her treatment by the record company.

It is nothing to do with the company. Elsewhere on her site Carlos
describes the LPs as a terrible compromise, but the best that were
available for the time. The LP mastering procedure was necessary.
Nothing to do with the record company.

The mastering was out of her hands. Some of the changes she complains of
weren't necessary (midrange boost, for one) but were likely part of a
Columbia/CBS "house sound".

Odd
in a way to champion the early synthesizer with its completely
artificial aural space in a discussion of master tape fidelity.

Can you explain "artifical aural space" please ? I think you're talking
******** with that remark, to be frank about it.

It's what you get when you don't use microphones. Dig around the website
somemore. Notice terms like "ambient".

http://www.valley-entertainment.com/..._The_Absolute_
Sound/

They need not be, as a CD in any serious case is close to an exact
replica of the recorded work, unless a business decision is made to
alter that.

What kind of cover art does a master tape come with?

Cover art isn't music.

Cds aren't music, either. A bell is a cup, and all that.

The CD contains music. I thought that was obvious.

Once you get past the master tape thing, you're not much on philosophy.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
I know how "common" it is. (At the cutting stage, it isn't an lp yet.)

Sorry. To what will shortly become an LP.

An acetate, to be precise.

Nice to see you're being precise for once.

Maybe you're hung up on the word 'overdub'. Was there anything wrong
with the definitions I supplied?

You're the one who used it originally.

Is that all it takes, that I used it? I used it in sense that recording
a new track in a multi-track master is often called 'overdubbing',
hardly a novel usage.

Sigh. I think you need to be reminded of what you actually wrote......

**********
From: MiNe 109
Subject: Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Date: Fri, Fri Jul 25 00:15:00 2003
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

The lp master is also just another step and it can add to the final
work, either by artistic choice (eq, sound treatments, etc) or
literally, using "inserts" or even live overdubs.

**********

I don't see any mention of a multi-track master, unless you're now
asserting they use that as an lp master.

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn